Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, JURISDICTION—AIRCRAFT AND WATERCRAFT—M.D. Fla.: Aircraft charterer denied dismissal of claims in music producer’s death suit, (Feb 4, 2025)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

Florida courts exercised specific personal jurisdiction over the aircraft owner as the estate’s claims “arose out of” the owner’s substantial business activity in the forum.

In an action brought against an aircraft charterer by the surviving daughter of an artist who died in a plane crash, a federal district court in Florida denied the owner’s dismissal motions. The owner “purposefully availed” itself of the forum by operating three flights a day to Florida, which accounted for thirty percent of its revenue. The owner’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens was also denied because it failed to show that the daughter’s claim would not be barred under the Montreal Convention if she refiled it in the owner’s proposed alternative forum (Hernandez v. Helidosa Aviation Group, S.A., No. 6:23-cv-2402-GAP-UAM (M.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2025)).

Background. In December 2021, a successful music producer and artist booked round-trip air charter services from Orlando, Florida to the Dominican Republic for himself and five members of his family. After they boarded the return flight, the flight crew extended the wing’s ground spoilers as part of a preflight control check, but the right-wing spoilers failed to retract after extending, causing control issues post takeoff. This prompted an emergency landing attempt during which the aircraft struck the ground, resulting in its destruction and the deaths of all onboard—two pilots, a flight attendant, and the six passengers. The artist’s surviving daughter/estate brought suit against the aircraft charterer, Helidosa Aviation Group, S.A. (owner), under the Montreal Convention. She alleged general and specific personal jurisdiction under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(2), § 48.193(1)(a)(1), and § 48.193(1)(a)(6)(a). The owner moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, forum non conveniens.

Parties’ contentions. The daughter pointed out that Helidosa operated three flights a day to and from 23 Florida destinations, accounting for 26 percent of its worldwide flights and generating 30 percent of its revenue. In the 16 months prior to his death, her father used Helidosa’s services 17 times, out of which 12 trips involved Florida airports. The estate also referred to the owner’s CEO’s deposition testimony, where the latter admitted that (1) more than half of Helidosa’s U.S. revenue came from Florida, amounting to $15.8 million annually; (2) Helidosa’s fourteen planes travelled to Florida once or twice a year for maintenance; (3) one quarter of Helidosa’s pilots’ bi-annual training occurred in Florida; and (4) Helidosa acquired customers through an online bidding platform operated by two Florida-based companies and a network of brokers having offices in Florida. The estate claimed that the owner’s contacts with the forum were related to her cause of action because it was one of those charter flights to Florida that caused the decedent’s death.

In contrast, Helidosa opposed the exercise of personal jurisdiction by submitting its CEO’s declaration, which clarified that the owner (1) had never been registered to conduct business in Florida, (2) had no agents or employees in Florida, (3) had no offices in Florida, (4) owned no property in Florida, (5) had no bank accounts in Florida, (6) had no listed business address in Florida, (7) had never paid taxes in Florida, and (8) had never advertised, solicited or marketed its services in Florida.

Legal standard. To exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident, courts consider whether there is a basis for jurisdiction under Florida’s Long-Arm Statute and whether sufficient minimum contacts exist to satisfy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specific personal jurisdiction under Florida’s Long-Arm Statute requires “connexity,” i.e., “a direct affiliation, nexus, or substantial connection” between the defendant’s business activity and the plaintiff’s claim. Citicorp Ins. Brokers (Marine), Ltd. v. Charman, 635 So. 2d 79, 82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The Due Process Clause supports jurisdiction when the (1) plaintiff’s claims “arise out of or relate to” the defendant’s forum contacts; (2) the defendant purposefully avails itself of the forum; and (3) the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”

Analysis. Helidosa conceded that it conducted business in Florida, leaving only the question whether the daughter’s claim arose from its business venture. The owner provided charter aircraft services in Florida, the decedent knew of Helidosa because of its Florida market presence, he used the services to fly to or from Florida twelve times, and the crash that killed him occurred during his final flight bound for Orlando. Thus, there was a direct affiliation between Helidosa’s business activity in the forum and the instant claim. Nw. Aircraft Cap. Corp. v. Stewart, 842 So. 2d 190, 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), fulfilling the Long-Arm Statute’s requirement. Turning to the Due Process Clause analysis, the court clarified that claim relatedness did not require direct causation and “a strong relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation” was sufficient, Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 362 (2021). The first prong was satisfied as there was a strong relationship between Helidosa, Florida, and the Montreal Convention claim.

Next, the daughter plainly established that Helidosa purposely availed itself of this forum, considering that: (1) its aircraft land on Florida soil three times each day; (2) it derived 30 percent of its revenue from Florida; and (3) its CEO testified that Florida was Helidosa’s most important state. The exercise of jurisdiction over the owner was reasonable and any inconvenience it faced in litigating here was outweighed by: (1) Florida’s interest in adjudicating a dispute related to the deaths of its residents; (2) the estate’s interest in obtaining expeditious, convenient, and effective relief; and (3) the judicial system’s interest in efficiency. Thus, this court could exercise jurisdiction over Helidosa.

Forum non conveniens. Under this doctrine, a defendant must establish that (1) an adequate alternative forum is available, (2) the public and private factors weigh in favor of dismissal, and (3) the plaintiff can reinstate [her] suit in the alternative forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice. Fresh Results, LLC v. ASF Holland, B.V., 921 F.3d 1043, 1048 (11th Cir. 2019). The requirement of an available forum is satisfied when “the defendant is amenable to process in the other jurisdiction.”

Analysis. The owner argued that a Florida trial would be inconvenient because Helidosa was a Dominican company, and the underlying accident, the accident’s investigation, the subject aircraft’s registration and maintenance, and all relevant evidence like the aircraft wreckage was located in the Dominican Republic. The estate conceded that the Dominican Republic was an “adequate” alternative forum, so the only issue was whether it was “available.” The owner claimed that it was, since it agreed to accept service and consent to jurisdiction there, and to waive any timeliness defense if the suit was refiled there within six months of its dismissal. Its law expert asserted that the “two-year limitations period” set forth in Article 35 of the Montreal Convention would not preclude an action in the Dominican Republic, as the estate “already timely commenced her cause of action.” However, his analysis hinged on various Dominican Republic Civil Code provisions, which had seemingly no relation to treaty limitations periods.

Meanwhile, the estate’s comparative law expert asserted there was no known or recognized tolling of a prescription period found within a treaty in the Dominican Republic. This court agreed that there appeared to be an open question of treaty interpretation in the U.S. as to whether Article 35’s limitations period would be satisfied if the estate refiled her claim in the Dominican Republic. Since the sole claim was brought under the Montreal Convention, the court credited the daughter’s expert’s unrebutted testimony. Helidosa’s failure to establish an alternative available forum doomed its dismissal motion under the doctrine.

The case is No. 6:23-cv-2402-GAP-UAM.

Judge: Presnell, G.

Attorneys: Ricardo Manoel Martinez-Cid (Podhurst Orseck, P.A.) for Keigelyan Hernandez. Clayton Thornton (Clyde & Co US LLP) for Helidosa Aviation Group, S.A.

Companies: Helidosa Aviation Group, S.A.

Cases: CourtDecisions JurisdictionNews AircraftWatercraftNews FloridaNews